US Politics: Mueller Monday

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

This was true half a century ago

Historically speaking that's like yesterday. You have shit that's centuries old in Europe and still stirring up trouble.

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

and if you look at the politics of that day, these policies were popular -- the associated laws passed Congress by overwhelming majorities. Sure, some people were angry, but they were an irrelevant minority (especially since life was getting better for everyone at the time).

It's said that when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act he commented to an aide "I think we just delivered the south to the Republican party for a long time to come" (or something similar, I found three slightly different versions of the quote).

But in fact, in the 1968 election, 5 southern states voted for Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama.

So no, these people were never "an irrelevant minority." They were a very relevant minority that continues to haunt American politics to this day. Not that much has changed, except that we're now dealing with the children and grandchildren of the white folks who wanted to prevent James Meredith from going to university or who pulled out their kids because of Ruby Bridges.

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

Sure, but the numbers we do have suggest mainly that the people who are making quantitative arguments in these fields either don't understand the idea of uncertainty due to sources other than simple statistics or they're politically motivated.

What's uncertain about the fact that members of minorities are still far more likely to be poor than whites?

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

There are no "numbers" to support any action, but this hasn't stopped a variety of groups from pushing for advantages and I don't see a reason why it should stop other groups.

You seem to be implying that whites are just another group.
But whites still are a majority and they still hold a disproportionate amount of socio-economic power.

The thing is, the fact that the middle-class is shrinking does not change much else.

Also, this argument was used before. Many Jim Crow laws were implemented to protect poor whites who could be facing "unfair" competition from the freedmen.

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

I was referring to Breitbart's encouragement of recognition for anti-white discrimination.

We're still talking about economic inequality here? Because in spite of everything whites are still doing quite all right in the US.

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

First, it is not at all obvious which ideas are the best -- if you consider either individual cultures through history or cultures worldwide today, there's a considerable variety of ideas and it's not clear that we will ever converge on a single, eternal set. However, even leaving that can of worms unopened, silencing ideas rather than debating them only works if you actually manage to silence them everywhere. What the people on college campuses are doing are silencing ideas that they don't like locally and giving them a much wider audience nationwide. It would be a rather counterproductive thing to do even if the very act did not people angry in and of itself.

I can't disagree with that.
But technically, a protest is also free speech. How do you reconcile the first amendment rights of some to speak with the first amendment rights of others to protest? Maybe it's nobody's fault if universities don't want the confrontation to happen on their grounds.

[Seli]

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

This was true half a century ago and if you look at the politics of that day, these policies were popular -- the associated laws passed Congress by overwhelming majorities. Sure, some people were angry, but they were an irrelevant minority (especially since life was getting better for everyone at the time). This is not the case today.

...

The problem is reality. You got that piece of legislation right in the middle of (mostly white) people profiting from one of the largest redistributions in US history (post WWII G.I. bill). While for a lot of the minority populations it wasn't even the end of practices aimed at destroying their prosperity (eg redlining, urban renewal).

Just because one demographic group now lacks the added advantage they had back then does not mean the damage dealt to other ones is gone. Especially with things like education, where sadly the issues that face parents harm their offspring.

 

[Morpheus]

Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, come on down

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Mexal]

And the first indictment goes to... Manafort and Gates. So it begins.

 

[The Mance]

Any predictions on the Mueller charges coming today?  Over/under on actual collusion by key Trump cabinet/campaign figures?

Personally I'm a little apprehensive about the whole thing.  Given that Trumps base would be credulous/hand-waving of even a video recording of the orange cheeto himselvis signing a handwritten document offering Putin ONEMILLIONDOLLARS!! to help him defeat Clinton, there had better be some legitimate bite to these Russia probe findings or all the #fakenews #witchhunt bleatings are just going to get louder.  Tapping Fynn or Manafort for some peripheral financial misdeeds is not going to cut it. 

 

eta:  oh, haha

[Mexal]

Just now, The Mance said:

Any predictions on the Mueller charges coming today?  Over/under on actual collusion by key Trump cabinet/campaign figures?

Personally I'm a little apprehensive about the whole thing.  Given that Trumps base would be credulous/hand-waving of even a video recording of the orange cheeto himselvis signing a handwritten document offering Putin ONEMILLIONDOLLARS!! to help him defeat Clinton, there had better be some legitimate bite to these Russia probe findings or all the #fakenews #witchhunt bleatings are just going to get louder.  Tapping Fynn or Manafort for some peripheral financial misdeeds is not going to cut it. 

It's 5 months into Mueller's investigation. Even if the charges have to do with money laundering only, it might be enough to get him to flip. Russia is one thing but Trump has been doing shady deals for 30 years and this will scare the shit out of him regardless.

[Trebla]

6 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, come on down

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/paul-manafort-indicted.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

A previous NYT story on Rick Gates. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/politics/rick-gates-russia.html

 

eta: This is REALLY interesting if they are following the $

Quote

As investigators examine Mr. Manafort’s financial and political dealings at home and abroad, they are likely to run into Mr. Gates wherever they look. During the pair’s heady days in Ukraine, it was Mr. Gates who flew to Moscow for meetings with associates of Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch. His name appears on documents linked to shell companies that Mr. Manafort’s firm set up in Cyprus to receive payments from politicians and businesspeople in Eastern Europe, records reviewed by The New York Times show.

 

[Morpheus]

Trump's tweets yesterday look like the ravings of a frightened man

[Darzin]

I don't think we are quite at the point of civil strife, but the system certainly is strained. I do, however, see a light at the end of the tunnel young people and the younger generation are pretty liberal on both social issues and economics. The republicans have lost the young and in less they change their current policies are not sustainable. I think part of the insanity of Trump and the Republican party in general is they can feel the country slipping away from them. Anger and fear are powerful motivators but in the end the type of people who voted for Trump are below replacement rate. Assuming we survive the next 15 years I think we'll be all right.

 

Also I am optimistic about  Trump losing in 2020. When he ran one of the problems is he had no record for liberals to attack on policy. The lack of a repeal of Obamacare and the lack of a wall on the southern border will depress conservative turnout, and Donald Trump as president will boost liberal turnout and hopefully the reality of him being president will tamp down that third party nonsense liberals are so fond of.

[The Mance]

10 minutes ago, Mexal said:

It's 5 months into Mueller's investigation. Even if the charges have to do with money laundering only, it might be enough to get him to flip. Russia is one thing but Trump has been doing shady deals for 30 years and this will scare the shit out of him regardless.

Maybe.  But TrumpCo will just fight any financial allegations in court until the day he dies.  That's just business as usual for him.  I'd be happier for something with real political ramifications right now, today.

[The guy from the Vale]

@Darzin I wish that was still true. There has, however, been so much reactionary propaganda aimed at young white people being pushed that I fear the current adolescents might just as well end up majority fascist.

[LongRider]

NY Times reporting:

Quote

WASHINGTON — Paul Manafort and his former business associate Rick Gates were told to surrender to federal authorities Monday morning, the first charges in a special counsel investigation, according to a person involved in the case.

The charges against Mr. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, and Mr. Gates, a business associate of Mr. Manafort, were not immediately clear but represent a significant escalation in a special counsel investigation that has cast a shadow over the president’s first year in office.

Anybody else heard anything?

[karaddin]

Well the Wall Street Journal decides to go all in on supporting Trump, calling for Meuller to resign and calling out "Clinton and DNC collusion with Russia". I'd love to know where you get your confidence that civil strife isn't close, because this sure as shit scares the hell out of me.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Well the Wall Street Journal decides to go all in on supporting Trump, calling for Meuller to resign and calling out "Clinton and DNC collusion with Russia". I'd love to know where you get your confidence that civil strife isn't close, because this sure as shit scares the hell out of me.

WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch property so no surprise there.

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, Nasty LongRider said:

WSJ is a Rupert Murdoch property so no surprise there.

Fox has still just been pretending its all not happening, WSJ pretends to be higher than Fox I would have thought, not lower.

[LongRider]

WSJ has been carrying the RW water for a long time now, and showing the Murdoch 'touch' since it went to him in 2007.  However: 

Quote

WASHINGTON—The former chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has been told to surrender to authorities on charges including tax fraud, according to people familiar with the matter.

Paul Manafort is expected in federal court in Washington, D.C., later on Monday, the people said.

Mr. Manafort was charged in an indictment returned on Friday along with his former business associate, Rick Gates, several of the people said. They are the first to face arrest in an investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a former FBI director.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-trump-campaign-chairman-paul-manafort-charged-in-russia-probe-1509365767

[LongRider]

CNN:

 

[Mexal]

Conspiracy against the US. 12 counts in the indictment. This ain’t looking great.

 

[Maithanet]

Anecdotal evidence time!

I drove south through VA to Lynchburg this past weekend, and kept track of the Northam and Gillispee signs I saw on the way.  The final count was Gillispee 15, Northam 7. 

That might sound bad, but I made the same trip last year, and the tally was approximately Clinton 10, Trump 90.  So a 2 to 1 ratio for Gillispee through rural VA is actually pretty good for Northam, IMO.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

40 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Conspiracy against the US. 12 counts in the indictment. This ain’t looking great.

 

It's actually not looking bad at all.  Mueller indicted for "Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering" under 18 USC 371 instead of money laundering itself (18 USC 1956).  Conspiracy only carries 5 years imprisonment vs money laundering's 20 year imprisonment.  Also, he didn't indict him for mortgage fraud, which would have been the other hammer.

I don't think any of the charges against him carry more than a five year penalty max, and even then the sentences for each charge will be served concurrently.  With sentencing guidelines, he probably won't even serve that much time.